JFK, LBJ, Lansky, Dulles and Zionists

This Kennedy assassination is finally getting clearer. Without spelling the forbidden word I recently learned a few more facts, not being any expert on this issue.

Firstly, in a visit to Cuba I bought a book with Meyer Lansky as the cover boy. The other books sold in Cuba were mostly works of Commandante Che Guevara, I did not buy them as I do not plan revolutions nowadays. Apparently the Mafia in Havana was run by Meyer Lansky, the Jewish Mafia boss, who was the inspiration to Sergio Leone’s great Once upon a time in America. This Jewish Kosher Nostra was just a part of the modern American Mafia organized by Sicilian Charles “Lucky” Luciano, who was happy to work also with Jewish and Irish gangsters, not only with Italians. Meyer Lansky was the second highest boss just after Lucky. After Lucky was released from prison, he tried to settle in Cuba, but was expulsed, according to the book with the help of Lansky: Lansky wanted to be the sole head of the very profitable Havana Mafia Empire.

The gangsters produced heroine in Cuba and sold it in the USA, imported cocaine from the USA and sold in Cuba, run gambling casinos in Havana, prostitution naturally, but were also involved in much of legal Cuban business. It was not only Lansky’s Mafia family, but there were the bankers and the CIA, so says the book.

Lucky had been released from prison in the USA because of his patriotic actions, which means the co-operation of the Mafia and the USA army during the Second World War: as in the time of Garibaldi and Mazzini, there was a linkage between the Sicilian Mafia and Carbonaries/Freemasons. So it was also in the Second World War: the US army got help from the Mafia in the landing to Italy. This cooperation apparently continued as actions between the CIA and the American Mafia. The book I bought claims that both parties were involved in the drug trade: drugs produced in Cuba in pharmacological institutes from raw material brought from the USA as raw material for legal medical drugs, but turned into heroin in Cuba, were transported to the USA from the US military airport by a special airline. If there had not been the Iran-Contra scandal later, I would not believe it, but as this incidence was and there was the unnamed party involved in it, I kind of believe this.

Even more believable it gets when we notice that Allan Dulles was the head of the CIA in Kennedy’s time. This is the same Dulles, who found the book by Dialogues in Hell by Maurice Joly from which, as was concluded, the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion was plagiarized. He was 28 years old at that time and in diplomatic service in Istanbul and had been in the Paris Peace Conference with his brother John Foster in 1919. This brother was later Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, but much earlier had been a partner in Sullivan and Cromwell, where Allen Dulles had his first job in 1926. Sullivan and Cromwell is a law firm, but it represented banking interests in building of American railroads and the Panama Canal. That’s a direct link to the infamous banker’s club. They are exactly the circles that the notorious Protocols claims are the secret world rulers. The Protocols calls the natural Jews their (that is, Elders) small cousins, against whom the Elders create anti-Semitism for some essential reason, which obviously is to persuade the natural Jews to move to Palestine: it was the goal of Banker and Zionist Jacob Schiff. The Elders of the Protocols seem to be bankers with a Freemasonry type secret society, who for some reason call themselves Jews (high members of the subversive Mizraim lodge did so). And surprisingly, or not, Allen Dulles finds from Istanbul the exact book used by the Russian Okhrana as the main source of the notorious forgery. This all sounds very believable. So, we have as the head of the CIA a person, who already in his youth was connected with the banker’s club, and who made the deal with Lucky Luciano. JFK fired Dulles, that did not make him too happy. And then there was James Jesus Angleton, of course, the Mossad connection.

Secondly, I read from The Unz Review an article of the Vietnam War being just a way to draw attention away from the Six Day war. I did not buy this argument, but the article had some good pieces of information. It turns out that Lyndon B. Johnson was working in his youth in the Galveston project. Galveston is remembered only from two things. One is the song Galveston, oh Galveston. Another is that Jacob Schiff started the Galveston project (Operation Texas), which had the goal of helping Russian Jews to move to Palestine through Galveston. That is Zionism. Johnson was raised in a family belonging to the Christadelphian sect, which is a Christian Zionism and this Christadelphian aunt had much influence in his thinking. For Christadelphians, Jews are God’s people and the state of Israel is of all importance. As John F. Kennedy was not in so good terms with Israel because of Israel’s plans of making nuclear weapons, one may wonder why Kennedy took Johnson as the vice-president. It is explained in the article, Kennedy was pressed by Zionists to do so. Fine, Kennedy had a committed Christian Zionist as the vice-president when he was trying to stop Israel’s nuclear weapon program. Then he got shot and Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by a gangster named Jack Ruby, who’s real name is Jacob Leon Rubenstein. (Echo analysis is as pertinent here as always.) Ruby had visited Lewis McWillie in Cuba four years ago. McWillie run gambling in the Tropicana Club in Havana and therefore belonged to Meyer Lansky’s gangsters and Ruby was connected with Lucky Luciano’s new Mafia. We have here again a connection to the Jewish Mafia. Meyer Lansky was naturally an ardent Zionist, warmly remembered in Israel.

Cubans made their own investigation of the Kennedy assassination and seem to have concluded that behind the assassination was a conspiracy involving the CIA, bankers, Havana Mafia and Cuban refugees. They do not say the forbidden word, but that is about the correct group. The purpose, according to Cubans, was to blame the assassination on Fidel Castro. It could be seen as a revenge on Kennedy’s efforts to assassinate Castro. Finally, through Oswald’s stay in Russia, the assassination was framed as a Soviet operation. Soviets did such things occasionally, such as killing Trotsky, not to mention if Russians still do it. Cuba was kind of small to dare to do such actions.

Cubans seem to think that the assassination was really a revenge on Kennedy’s decision not to send the US Marines to help Cuban refugees on the Bay of Pigs. I was in Playa Girón and there stands on a platform a Soviet assault gun, I think it was SU-122, by which Fidel Castro destroyed an American ship. Such self-propelled guns are ideal weapons to destroy tanks. Those things (but German) did some good work in Finland in 1944 shooting down Soviet tanks. Cubans also had bombers as Americans failed to destroy their airplanes. Cubans apparently got a warning, something that should not happen in a surprise attack.

I think the attack was leaked to Cubans on purpose, just to create the situation. There were a bit over one thousand Cuban refugees, who were defeated in the beach of Playa Girón. I find this incidence suspicious. Americans must have known that Cubans had Soviet weapons and for me about one thousand Cuban refugee fighters are not enough even with US air support, that is, assuming that Americans had succeeded in destroying Cuban airplanes, to overcome the Cuban revolutionary army of that time. This looks to me like a CIA operation where the US President was to be put into a situation where he could and would feel compelled to send the US Marines to help Cuban refugees, and in this way the President could start a war against Cuba. As is too well known, the US President cannot start an attack war, that decision belongs to the Congress, but has the rights to defend the country, and by a correct presentation of the situation, this might have been the case here: defend the poor Cuban refugees trying to return home under American protection.

Kennedy decided not to send the Marines, or to attack from the US base in Guantánamo. It must have made Cuban refugees very angry as they surely had been promised strong US support in a mission that otherwise was suicidal, but Kennedy was not shot by Cuban refugees and they did not have the influence to cover up their possible involvement from a police investigation. There had to be more influential powers behind the assassination. The Mafia also had a reason to be angry with Kennedy as they lost Havana, and not being the most tempered people, some gangster might have wanted both Kennedy boys dead. There probably was a Mafia gunman on the Grassy Knoll, I rather think this is so, but the Mafia could not control the investigation well enough, alone at least, I hope, but Lansky… Anyway, I think there was still a more powerful force behind the assassination, one that also could control the press. The CIA is a natural candidate, but the question is, why the CIA would have killed Kennedy, who approved the Bay of Pigs and assassination attempts of Castro? For no reason, it appears. If the CIA had made a plot to get the USA invade Cuba, and it failed, then there was no reason to kill the President for it. So, we are back to the Zionist vice-president and banker’s club connected CIA head and Kennedy’s negative attitude to a matter of vital national interests, the nuclear weapons.

Lyndon B. Johnson proved to be a good friend and did not raise this issue any more. He also sent troops to Vietnam. I think this decision was motivated by a wish to stop the spread of Communism. Communism is a complicated issue since in the beginning the banker’s club supported the revolution in Russia, but after Trosky was thrown out the situation changed. Communism was not to be destroyed but it had to be confined until times would change for better. As they did not, Communism was allowed to collapse.

It is something like that, I am afraid. A mistake that many people do is to think that though something that took place in the good guy’s side was quite bad, there was a still much worse adversary, destroyed in the major war, and we must never give this adversary a chance of returning. (Repeat the H-word any time any place.) The mistake here is to imagine that there were two sides. There was only one active side in all this, playing both hands. Restoration of people was the goal, and it could not happen without force. Force was an essential part of the plan, not an independent effort of an adversary to ruin the plan. Was it an intelligent plan? I would not say so, as the judgment of actions is based on the results and the results so far do not justify the means. It was a criminal plan relying on deception and cheating, of the type of Mafia plans. Effective, maybe, for a time, but it is not good thinking.

Post Script:

I was sent a link to a 1994 book by Piper. I had read of his theory (Mossad did it) some ten years ago, but only as a short version. I will read this book, it seems interesting:

http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf

The problem with the kind of way of proving things, that historians use, is that they make a story with lots of details. Then you can make many different stories by adding and omitting details. This way there are many historical truths, but actually there was only one way things happened. I, coming from mathematical sciences, prefer to construct the shortest and most simple proof. It should be only a few undeniable steps leading to the result. If the steps are correct, they are enough. Additional information can only confirm them and no information can refute them, no matter how long argument is presented with no matter how many details. There should be as few steps as possible, so that each can be carefully considered: is it certainly true. As it is history, this cannot be fully achieved, but to some extent it can. Thus, I base a claim that JFK assassination was a conspiracy to the fact that the Audiograph signal “keep everything secure” is modified, that is, it is not human voice as it has too regular wave forms. This is undeniable in my opinion. So there was a conspiracy, and who had access to modify the signal? I come to about the same conclusion as Piper (25 years later) by simple methods, no stories with many details. But I will read this 770 page book and review it in this blog after having read it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.